Because in this case, the "victims" were voluntarily involved. Also, the peanut gallery is free to throw peanuts at the stage.

You think the rank and file got their just desserts?

Maybe? I mean, for the baristas and whatnot, sure, I feel bad for them. But for educated professionals? Especially the kinds of people who can extract significant compensation in equity? I struggle to feel particularly bad.

Everybody involved knew (or should have known) that the recent round of money-losing IPOs were high-risk ventures. And I would hope anybody thinking about taking options instead of cash would learn enough about pricing options to be pretty clear on the risks involved.

Also, if the con had gone on long enough for the "rank and file" to cash out after the lockup expired, how many of them would be giving money back to investors after WeWork's problems were revealed? I'm guessing zero. Let alone the salary they got for building what turned out to be worth way less than what was invested.

Without getting into that, on the bright side of this We does seem to have facilitated a fairly large-scale transfer of wealth from investors and landlords to contractors and people renting short-term office space.

I wonder how capitalism could compare with something like market socialism in cases like this. It seems like it would be easier for employees of companies (and stakeholders outside the company) to have more control over the direction of a business since they would also be shareholders. Adam Neumann types probably wouldn't be able to exist since they are so destructive to corporation and the people depending on the corporation.

Would market socialism have the possibility for massive financial gain by making the company IPO with as high a valuation as possible? In the end, it's that goal which caused all this. Employees had stock options probably and bought into that goal as much as anyone else. Remove the massive potential payout and everything calms down irrespective of economic system.

This isn't a failure of capitalism, its just due to blind optimism and lack of governance with people falling under the spell of a charismatic CEO imho. If it had worked, everyone would be saying this guys a genius.

I looked at WeWork at one stage for an office, the prices seemed crazy, I didn't understand how any one was using it, you've been able to get serviced offices for years for way cheaper. He did OK though, he gets out with a bag of cash and leaves someone else carrying the debt.

You aren't asking "why" enough. It's not just a bad actor... Why was it possible for him to do what he did? Why was he allowed to personally succeed and leave others the debt?

greed, and a lack of oversight? I'm no fan of capitalism, it has many flaws. I'm not upset at VC's losing money though, thats the risk they take, it's a high stakes game, thats why the IPO failed, there are more rules for a listed company. The only alternative I can see is to regulate who can invest their money in what, I can't see that working, unless I'm missing something.

There is a failure for the employees, but everyone knows, or should know they're rolling the dice working for a startup, as others have said shares are lottery tickets, and the system is stacked against you as an employee ever making money.

Capitalism isn't necessarily a good thing, it's just better than any other economic system.

^ person with facts relying on emotional outbursts. Checks out.

Hey treelovinhippie. Show me some sources so I can enlighten myself.

As a passive supporter of capitalism I’ve enjoyed reading Ha Joon Chang’s critiques of capitalism.